"Faith-based science"?(myths on darwinism)

ITEM: "Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg lashed out against conservatives yesterday," reported the New York Daily News for May 26, "for ignoring science and common sense on issues such as stem-cell research, global warming and even evolution. Making his latest foray into national issues, the mayor blamed ideologues for trying to drag the nation back decades by disputing scientifically proven facts.... Bloomberg said he was angered to see fundamentalists trying to turn back the clock on teaching evolution in schools--and denounced the intelligent design theory as 'creationism by another name.'"

CORRECTION: Darwinists would have us think that only snaggle-toothed, dim-witted snake-handlers dare challenge the orthodoxy of Darwinism, but that is far from the case. Notable scientists have indeed challenged Darwinism. These include atheists. For example, prominent Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that the mathematical probability of life evolving randomly was "so utterly minuscule" (listing the odds of it happening at 1 to 1 plus 40,000 zeroes) that it was too ridiculous to believe. To help illustrate those long odds, Hoyle used a metaphor: a living organism emerging by chance from a pre-biotic soup, he said, is about as likely to occur as "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." Then there's Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for the co-discovery of DNA, who echoed Hoyle's conclusion.

Bloomberg and his ideological allies probably would also burn Louis Pasteur at the figurative stake because the French microbiologist and chemist was a critic of Darwin--on scientific grounds. After all, Pasteur was one of those dreaded "faith-based" fellows, who actually believed that "science brings men closer to God."

Scientific Fraud

Darwinism is not only worthy of skepticism on mathematical and religious grounds, but in other areas as well. Darwin said that "by far the strongest class of facts" that proved his theory came from embryology--in particular relying on German biologist Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel made drawings of classes of vertebrates, showing them to be very much alike in their initial stages of formation, allowing Darwin to point to them as "proof" that all animals have the same origin. In 1997, wrote Tom Bethell in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005), "British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team compared Haeckel's drawings with photographs of actual vertebrate embryos, demonstrating conclusively that the drawings misrepresented the truth. Richardson was quoted in Science: 'It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.'"

Other frauds have been perpetrated on behalf of "evolution," yet Darwinists, especially in the academic world, often treat Darwin's theories as revealed sacred writ. One wonders if they would be a bit embarrassed to find that, on occasion, those indisputable truths had to be changed or repackaged. Such a makeover occurred when Darwin asserted in the first edition of his The Origin of Species: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, ...